Summary of Findings

We
gained several insights as a result of studying current practices in assessment
accommodations in Rhode Island schools. The following summarized findings present
only a glimpse into the complex conditions that surround the decision-making and
implementation process of accommodations for students with disabilities during
the state assessments. However, because we studied a number of
sites and employed a variety of data gathering methods, we believe that these
data indicate trends worth investigating further, particularly in the areas of
post-graduate training opportunities for school personnel and the essential
difference between classroom and assessment accommodations for students with
disabilities.

A. Issues of Education and Process

According to the Rhode Island educators who responded to our survey (N=246), it appears that graduate-level
training may not sufficiently emphasize accommodations for assessments.

On average, 55% of the total sample
reported that they either had not received graduate-level training or brief
coverage at the graduate level in a professional's role and responsibility in
developing IEPs and in developing accommodations in instruction and assessment.

By contrast, approximately 41% of
the special educators (N=105) reported that they had had in-depth training in
developing IEPs during graduate school. However, of this sub-sample, 57%
said they had not gotten training in the State Assessment Program.

Our sample
reported that many of them had taken advantage of IEP trainings from RIDE, but
that the IEP Fellows Network had not taken hold in their schools. Respondents
most frequently identified articles or memos as their source of information
about the State Assessment Program specifically. For example:

Approximately 13% of the entire
sample reported they had access to IEP fellows in their schools;

47% reported that they had attended
RIDE-sponsored IEP training;

Respondents most frequently
reported that they had learned about the State Assessment Program from articles
or memos (49.2%), with RIDE-sponsored trainings and in-house trainings run by
school personnel tied for second (36.2%).

Regarding the
process of developing and implementing accommodations among IEP team members, it
seemed that the assessment accommodations were more frequently the
responsibility of a school's special education staff. Although 85% of the sample
noted that general education teachers were always present on IEP teams,
especially high school general education teachers noted that they had very
little knowledge or involvement in developing assessment accommodations. In addition:

Respondents most frequently identified a student's performance as what
influenced decision-making in instructional accommodations
(34%), followed by IEP discussions; whereas a student's assessment
accommodation might be determined more by the IEP team's recommendations
(23%), followed by classroom performance;

A majority of respondents reported that they were
less influenced by a student's disability in determining the need for
accommodations and more by the students' so-called “ability.” Further, a
majority reported that they were influenced by the amount of time spent in
mainstreamed classes.

This sample identified pulling out students with disabilities
for assessment accommodations most frequently as the means by which
accommodations were implemented (21%), whereas only 2.4% identified that
"students are grouped by need during assessment."

However, our observations contradicted this latter response:

22 of the 31 high school students were
"pulled out" for the assessment (i.e., receiving an alternate location);

Similarly, of the 19 elementary students
observed, 14 received "pull-out" assessment accommodations;

Among the students who were tested in
alternate locations, every student received the same accommodations
regardless of IEP directives.

B. Observed and Described
Accommodation Practices

According to our observations, all of the
participating schools tended to bundle accommodations for groups of students
during the assessments, rather than strictly following individual IEP
recommendations, seemingly in an effort to cover all bases for as many students
as possible. These accommodations tended to be alternate location, extended
time, oral administration of directions, clarification of directions, and
frequent breaks. In our sample, it was only occasionally that students did not
receive assessment accommodations specified in their IEPs.

Further, our sample of observed high school
students seemed to benefit less from implemented assessment accommodations than
elementary students. Some possible reasons included:

The considerably larger numbers of high
school students that needed accommodations meant that the accommodations were
sometimes less than ideal (for example, a noisier alternate location);

Proctoring staff was less likely to
impose accommodations such as frequent breaks or clarified directions for
high school students. Similarly, respondents noted that high school students
could opt to completely forego accommodations (such as alternate location)
or choose not to use them (e.g., extended time);

High school students may have been more
indifferent to the results of their testing, and therefore made less use of
the accommodations they were given.

Overall, it seemed evident that school staff
tried to do the best possible job they could in accommodating students with
disabilities during assessments. However, while more than half of the survey's
respondents declined to comment on which accommodations were most difficult to
use or least likely to be used, it was hard not to suspect a correlation between
the difficulty of implementing particular accommodations with their infrequency
of use. Assistive technology (such as computers) was an example of an
accommodation that was frequently recommended in instruction but rarely seen
during assessments, possibly because of described problems with disabling
spell-checkers or the inadequate number of functional computers in a particular
classroom.

However, issues of
institutional capacity -- such as appropriate locations for testing and
sufficient staffing -- posed problems for even the most basic accommodations.
Accommodations like small group or alternate location were deemed "difficult" by
some of our sampled educators because of the lack of resources:

Small group [is difficult to implement] due to the fact so many students qualify
for small group - it's now too large to be considered "small."

Small group -- because of lack of teachers.

Oral presentation
because of lack of space.

If
there are a number of students requiring different accommodations, they may all
be difficult. However, if requirements are similar,
they may be more manageable.

Finally, there appeared to be a significant difference between daily
instructional accommodations (and modifications) provided to students with
disabilities and what could be offered as assessment accommodations.
This difference was evident on the IEP documents, reported by respondents on
their surveys, and noted during our rounds of observations in the two school
districts. Students who are believed to benefit from instructional
accommodations such as one-on-one reading assistance, lower grade-level reading
materials, shorter assignments, or lifted penalties for sentence structure will
not have assessment accommodations that are in any way comparable. Thus, such students may not be prepared
for the state assessments, regardless of the accommodations provided.